Friday, April 18, 2008

AFP, PBS, MSNBC latest media sources that prove they don't read DCW

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at

We got our digs in on NBC earlier in the week and now it's time to point out another media source making a major blunder on the superdelegate front. Some people have questioned us on our need to point out these errors. We do it because we're unpaid part-time bloggers with no connections to either campaign and no journalism experience whatsoever, and frankly, it's fun to point out mistakes by our well-funded professional friends in the media.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Barack Obama moved a step closer to rival Hillary Clinton in their race for superdelegates Friday, as two senior figures in the Democratic party endorsed his candidacy for the White House

The Obama campaign announced that former senators Sam Nunn and David Boren, both of them superdelegates, the party luminaries who will decide the Democratic nominee in November's election, were coming on board as advisors. - AFP Yahoo and AFP Google
We can understand when commenters on our superdelegate list mistake the latest endorsement as coming from a superdelegate but from a major source like AFP? If you take a look at either of our lists you'll see that neither is a superdelegate. David Boren's son Rep. Dan Boren is a superdelegate but the elder Boren is not.

Update: Shame on Judy Woodruff of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. As mentioned in the comments, she repeated the bad information about Boren and Nunn. She should know better, or her producers should know better. You can see the video here - middle video - "Clinton, Obama Enter Final Stretch in Pennsylvania", 10:10 in.

And the comments also mention that it happened on Olbermann's show -- Even though First Read noted earlier today they were not superdelegates. (See, we can say nice things about Chuck Todd's First Read!).

Let us know if anybody else messes up,


Mike in Maryland said...


Shame on you for pointing out the MSM's mistakes! VBG

Maybe this is why the paid reporters have such a jag against unpaid bloggers? They can't so easily hide their embarrassments? Newspapers hide it by printing "Corrections" on page A10 days after the mistake, with little to no context to explain that 'correction'. The TV and radio networks usually just ignore the mistake, and/or change their reports as if they never made a mistake.

Keep up the good work! And keep letting us know if/when you come across such bloopers!!


s.b. said...

If someone's dog endorses Obama the MSM are all over it. That's the problem. it was obvious to anyone reading the stories they wouldnt be superdelegates and don't count for squat.

They dont even have e-mail lists or up to date phone numbers to give him. Their endorsements are like saying my neighbor is supporting Obama, but it gets press.

Joe said...

I've heard this mistake twice on TV today, on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Countdown with Keith Olbermann. It's beginning to get annoying. And it shows they must not truly know what qualifies someone as a superdelegate, because if you did, you would have no reason to assume either of these former senators are superdelegates.

Sarah said...

you go girlfriends!

You all just gave me a great laugh. Thanks for brightening up my day.

_libby_ said...

Good grief. An awful lot of fuss when the media mistakenly errors on your girl's numbers.

I can only imagine the excitement of this place when the pantsuited wonder wins PA Tuesday night.

And you claim to have no dog in this fight?

Yeah------------ right.

August said...

Just curious, is Robert Reich a Super?

Joe said...

No, Robert Reich isn't a superdelegate, and Keith Olbermann made that mistake as well.

August said...

Dang, why did he make this big ole ta-do about how hard it was for him to make a decision who to endorse...tha hell? Got my hopes up for nothing.

JayZed said...

Matt - I love this site, and I come here precisely because it's more accurate, reliable and well-researched that the mainstream media. But this kind of gloating schadenfreude is childish and unnecessary, and it demeans the site. Yes, they are well-funded professionals and you're not, but you normally maintain a very professional approach. Why undermine that with moments like this?

Mike in Maryland said...

JayZed said...
". . . Why undermine that with moments like this?"

Maybe it's because the MSM has made so many derogatory remarks about the 'amateur' bloggers who have 'no idea of the real world'?